http://www.romancatholicism.org
|
|
A History of the So-Called Jansenist
Church of Holland By the Rev. J.M. Neale, M.A. Oxford: John Henry and James Parker,
1858 Chapter XVIII. John Van Santen, Fourteenth
Archbishop Of Utrecht. 1825. 1. Thus the existence of the Church
of Holland again hung on one life; and the Chapter seems to have been more
awake both to its duties and to its dangers than in the long vacancy on the
death of Van Rhijn. Three months had already passed since notification had
been made to the Court of Rome of the election of William Vet, and the
Chapter therefore requested the Bishop of Haarlem to proceed to the
consecration of the Prelate-designate. Reference was also made to the
Government, by whom every encouragement was given to proceed, and the
ceremony took place at the church of S. James, at the Hague, the Second
Sunday after Trinity, June 12, 1825. It was conducted with a considerable
amount of splendour, and excited great attention on the part of the
Protestants as well as Catholics. To this consecration the royal assent was
given, and the titles of the national bishops were thenceforth recognised. 2. The Chapter had been invited to
assist at the consecration; and on the following Tuesday it assembled for the
election of an archbishop. There were present, Cornelius de Jong, Dean;
William Vet, Bishop of Deventer; Bernard Knijter, John van Santen, G.
Spruijt, Arnold Stanislaus van Werckhoven[1], and Arand Rottereel. One
of the canons, De Wit, [358] was absent from necessary causes; but he sent
his vote sealed and certified. The Bishop of Haarlem, though not a member of
the Chapter, was requested to be present. After a short address from the
Dean, secretaries were appointed, the votes were taken, and by a majority the
canons elected John van Santen, pastor at Schiedam. The Chapter applied, as
usual, to the Pope, but, also as usual, without receiving any answer; and the
consecration took place in the church of S. Gertrude at Utrecht, on the 13th
of November, the Sunday within the octave of S. Willebrord. The governor of
the province, and other civil authorities, were present on the occasion. I
observe, that in his letter to the Pope the Archbishop signs himself
“brother,” instead of “son,” as his predecessors had, up to that time, done.
The usual brief of excommunication followed: it bears date Jan. 13, 1826. 3. No difficulty was experienced on
the part of the Government; the three bishops were admitted to an audience in
due form; salaries were granted them; a Secretary-General was recognised, and
also salaried. Government even took upon itself to send the Protest of the
prelates — of which more presently — through the channel of their
ambassadors, to the bishops in various countries. Thus there appeared nothing
more for which the clergy had need to wish; yet at this very moment the “Put
not your trust in princes” was a most needful warning. The prelates had
requested to be officially recognised as Archbishop of Utrecht and Bishops of
Haarlem and Deventer. Government promised to do so; yet shortly afterwards an
official declaration was put forth, that they were only recognised as Bishops
at Utrecht, at Haarlem, and at Deventer. [359]4. In the following February,
the Archbishop and his two suffragans addressed an admirable encyclic to all
bishops of the Catholic Church. It goes over the old ground calmly and
briefly; states the facts of the schism; proves the nullity and invalidity of
the pretended excommunication of the Court of Rome; shews that there is no
charge of heresy; enters into the details of the last negotiation under
Nazalli; protests against the appellation of Jansenist, and invokes
the mediation of the united episcopate with the Court of Rome, concluding
with the usual appeal to the Future Oecumenical Council. This document was
addressed to each individual bishop with a letter, the spirit of which is
well set forth by a quotation from S. Augustine which it contains: “We suffer
injuries with patience, to preserve the peace of the Church; we abhor to
yield to any novelty of heresy or schism; we use our utmost efforts to
re-enter that external communion from which it is endeavoured to exclude us.”
This was the principle of Van Heussen, Codde, Van Erkel, and Varlet; it has
descended unchanged to the present generation of the National Church. 5. In 1827, Monseigneur Capaccini was
sent as Papal Nuncio into Holland, for the purpose of settling the
ecclesiastical condition of affairs. He sought an interview with the
Archbishop, of which so faithful an account is given by Dr. Tregelles, that I
shall avail myself, with a few omissions, of his account, rather than
re-write one of my own: — “Although the appointment of
Archbishop Van Santen had been (as usual) followed by a renewed
excommunication by Rome, yet Capaccini sought to win him just as if no such
hostile step had been taken. He invited Archbishop Van Santen to a
conference, with which he complied. [360] “In the first conference
Capaccini spoke much of the unity of the Church; of the deep interest felt at
Rome amongst the papal authorities on account of the Jansenists; how they
admired their firm adhesion to the Apostolical See, in spite of all that had
occurred in the last two centuries; how their steadfastness was only the more
admirable in a country like Holland, with Protestants all around them; how
firm a stand they had made against lax casuistry; and how much he hoped that
no real difficulties might be found which would cause them to continue in any
sense separated from the unity of the Catholic body. “As to Archbishop Van Santen,
personally, he was told by Capaccini how much his hopes rested on him, as a
person so diligent in his attention to every canonical regulation — an
attention shewn (he said) in everything connected with his election, the
notification to the Holy See, his consecration, &c. In fact, the Pope
would feel that he was quite an upholder of the authority of the Catholic
Church in the Netherlands, if the slight differences could be arranged. He
then appointed a time for another conference, which he hoped would be
definitive. “6. At the second conference
Capaccini began by again praising Van Santen as a person of extreme
‘regularity’ and prudence. He then went on to say that all the differences
between the Jansenists and the See of Rome might be reduced to one small
point, one little thing about which a person of such prudence and regularity
as the Archbishop could, of course, make no difficulty. Van Santen perfectly
understood what the Nuncio meant by the ‘one small point,’ and he said, ‘I
see what you mean — the Formulary.’ To this Capaccini was obliged to assent:
the ‘one small point’ was that which had been the ground of such bitter
persecutions and cruel sufferings. “The Archbishop of course refused to
sign the prescribed formulary, although the Nuncio (who had been stopped in
his flattering circumlocutions) pressed on him, ‘It is but a form; all that
is asked is, that you will write your name on a slip of paper, and then all
will be right.’ Van Santen replied indignantly, ‘A form has a meaning, and I
cannot subscribe a document, and confirm it by the solemn obligation [361] of
an oath, unless I am certain in my conscience before God of the truth of that
to which I put my name.’ “The Nuncio. — But you are bound in
your conscience before God to acknowledge the authority of the holy Father;
and as his Holiness assures you of the truth of the Formulary, that is
sufficient to remove every scruple. Any doubt in your own mind is but a
private opinion; while, on the other hand, you have the full authority of the
Church both to instruct you that the Formulary states what is true, and to
require you to acknowledge this undoubted fact. “Archbishop Van Santen. — I have read
the Augustinus of Jansenius more than once through; I know that the
Five Propositions, as condemned, are not contained in that book: how can I
then, as an honest man and a Christian, subscribe a declaration as true which
denies a simple fact? I have to do with God and my conscience, even if the
Pope and the whole Church should be misinformed. As they cannot alter a fact,
so they can have no authority from God to require me to sign my name to a
declaration which contradicts a fact. “The Nuncio. — You see, M. Van
Santen, that the table at which we are sitting is covered with a green
cloth. Now, supposing that the father of a family were to prohibit his
children absolutely from entering this room, or even looking into it, — well,
but if one of the children were to look in through the key-hole, and were
thus by disobedience to acquire the knowledge that the cloth on the table is
green, how then would the case stand? If the father were to make out an
inventory of the furniture in the room, and if he were (whether by mistake or
design, it matters not,) to describe this green cloth as being red;
and if he were, on the ground of his parental authority, to require each of
his children, as relying on their father’s information, to subscribe this
inventory as perfectly correct, it would not be competent to the child who
had seen the cloth to act upon the knowledge he had gained by disobedience,
and to refuse to subscribe the statement in which its colour was said to be red.
The father had a right to forbid his children to look into the room: he had
also a right to prescribe to his children what they should sign; and no act
of prior disobedience on the [362] part of any of them could take away the
obligation of unhesitating compliance. “Archbishop Van Santen. — You have
brought forward a curious illustration; but how would you apply it? and how
would you vindicate, even in such a case, the subscription to a known
untruth? “Capaccini. — There is no untruth at
all supposed in the case that I have put: the child is absolutely bound to
believe his parent; and, as the only ground he could have for any scruple of
conscience would be part of his sinful disobedience, he ought to say, ‘The
command of God requires me to obey my father; I must therefore obey him in
this point, which involves the sacrifice of my own opinion: and as I am
bound, in duty to God, to declare my belief that the cloth is red, I
may reasonably suppose that my eyes were mistaken when I saw it. Perhaps a
sunbeam hindered me from seeing the colour correctly; or perhaps, in
punishment for my disobedience, an optical illusion was sent to deceive me.
Any of these considerations is enough to justify me fully in subscribing my
full belief that the object is really red, and not green.’ “Archbishop Van Santen. — But how do
you apply the idea of knowledge obtained through disobedience to the
question of fact involved in subscription to the Formulary? “Capaccini. — Listen, that I may
instruct you. You are well aware that no theological virtue shines more
brightly than implicit obedience; the Holy Scriptures, the fathers and
doctors of the Church, and the practice of all the saints, so fully commend
this virtue, that there is no need for me to insist on it, at least in
conferring with you. Obedience would require that the work of Jansenius,
entitled Augustinus, should not be read, since it was condemned by the
Bull of Pope Urban VIII., (In eminenti). Any knowledge, therefore, which
any person now has of the contents of that book must have been obtained
through a transgression of that obedience to which he was bound. No one can
have a right to know what the book contains, any further than as relates to
the condemned propositions, and that only from the Constitution that condemns
them: you ought, therefore, as a submissive child, [363] not to insist on
acting on the knowledge obtained through disobedience, but you should own
with humility, that in reading the condemned book you may have been
mistaken; nay, that you must have been mistaken — that God did not
give you clear light when you were thus acting in presumption; so that all
you have to do is to subscribe the Formulary purely and simply, and receive
the blessing which will result from giving up your own will, and thus have
the satisfaction of restoring the peace of the Church. “Archbishop Van Santen. — If the
peace of the Church be in question, why does the Pope break it on the ground
of a mere question of fact? You have already described the subscription as a form
merely; why then should such importance be attached to a mere form? “Capaccini. — I have argued the point
simply to satisfy your scruples, and the illustrations which I used had no
other end. I cannot suppose that you will obstinately maintain your own
private opinion, especially when you remember that so many wise and learned
men are agreed that the Five Propositions are in Jansenius. “Archbishop Van Santen. — I do not
wish to set my judgment above that of others; I only ask, let the five
condemned propositions be shewn me in Jansenius, and let it be shewn
that they are there stated in the sense in which they were condemned; that
is, not in the sense in which anything similar is found in the works
of S. Augustine. You know the Formulary goes this length, and the Pope never
professed to condemn S. Augustine, one of the fathers and doctors of the
Church; and he could not condemn any propositions, if they are taken in an
orthodox sense, — for instance, in that of S. Augustine. “Capaccini. — It will not do for me
to argue on points which only require simple submission: it is easy to
misunderstand S. Augustine; and perhaps we should wander from the point if we
were to inquire into his meaning on these deep subjects. “Archbishop Van Santen. — But, with
regard to the Formulary, it is necessary for me to examine what S. Augustine
has written, and what is contained in Jansenius; for you call on me to
declare solemnly that Jansenius has misrepresented [364] the doctrine of S.
Augustine. How can I declare this, if I do not know what the doctrine
is, and whether it has been misrepresented or not? “Capaccini. — Surely we may compose
this slight difference: it is only by drawing refined distinctions of the
sense in which words are taken that you can object to subscribe. You do not
know how earnest is the good-will and sympathy of the holy Father towards
you; his paternal heart longs to welcome you as a returning child: surely you
may believe him when he assures you that the meaning of certain propositions
is that which the Church has defined them to be. You do not know in what
favour many of your sentiments are with the Pope: for instance, the Church
has never rejected the doctrine of efficacious grace, which you esteem
so highly; while this is not condemned, you see how everything may be
adjusted by merely your name being affixed to a form: a drop of ink and a few
seconds will put all right. This is all that the holy Father asks. “Archbishop Van Santen. — Am I then
to understand that his Holiness asks, that in a solemn oath I should call God
to witness that I do believe what I do not believe; what the Pope knows that
I do not believe; what Almighty God, the Searcher of hearts, knows that I do
not believe? Is Catholic unity to be maintained by perjury — an awful
sin before both God and man? And do you mean to say that if I knowingly
commit this crime, it will be what the Pope desires and demands? “Capaccini. — The holy Father only
requires that from you which lies in the province of his authority. When the
Church instructs you what to believe, you are bound to silence all
trifling scruples. “Archbishop Van Santen. — I cannot
conceal my indignation at your endeavours to make me declare, in the presence
of Almighty God, that I do believe a point that I do not believe: my
conscience is subject to Him, and, by His aid, I will act in His fear. I must
continue to refuse to put my name to a Formulary which I reject; my hand must
not contradict my heart.” 7. In the course of the same year the
Déclaration des [365] Evêques de Hollande was printed, and, as
we have seen, widely circulated, and served to re-direct the attention of
Europe to that suffering Church. The Belgian revolution produced no effect on
the position of Utrecht, and the course of events was only interrupted by the
death, on the 25th of June, 1841, of Bishop Bon, of Haarlem, the only one
among his brethren who had escaped Papal excommunication. The Chapter,
bearing in mind the reprimand of 1814, — “If you had asked you would not have
been refused,” — applied to the Government for license to proceed to an
election. This leave was denied. For two years, by a wretched manoeuvre, the
clergy were kept in suspense. When the bishops waited on the Minister, they
were informed that he could do nothing without the King; when they went to
the King, his Majesty had referred the matter to the Minister. Speculation
was evidently engaged on the age and infirmities of the two bishops, and the
possible extinction of Jansenism. At length, finding that he was being simply
trifled with, the Archbishop nominated Henry John Buul, priest at Audersen,
to the vacant see, and consecrated him — “invito rege et ministris,” were the
Archbishop’s own words to me — on the 10th of May, 1843; and hence only a
common week-day was chosen for the solemnity. Then began another species of
vexatious persecution. The Government, though acquainted with this
consecration on the very day it took place, completely ignored the new
bishop. All notices regarding the diocese of Haarlem were sent to the
Archbishop; then, returned by him with the intimation that the diocese had
its own ordinary, were despatched through the medium of the local
administration. An interpellation in the Second Chamber (June 19, 1845) [366]
was the means of bringing to pass the official recognition of Bishop Van
Buul; Thorbecke, afterwards minister, then a member of the Chamber, having
clearly proved that the recognition of the Bishop of Haarlem was likewise a
recognition of the National Church. 8. We must now give a glance at the
condition of the Roman Church in Holland since its complete toleration. A
Concordat had been concluded in 1827, but was not ratified till the accession
of William II. in 1841. In 1847 the mission of Holland, under the presidence
of Monsignor Ferrieri, contained four Vicariates-Apostolic, — Holland,
Bois-le-duc, Limburg, and Breda, with five bishops, all in partibus,
five seminaries, 1,094 churches and chapels, 1,539 priests, 1,171,910
Catholics. The total strength of every sect of Protestantism amounted but to
1,854,515. The Calvinism of Holland, with its Orthodoxo-Orthodox, Schottians,
Liberals, Pietists, — to say nothing of its Voetians and Koallenbruggians,
its Lutheranism, its Remonstrantism, its Mennonism, — all are alike doomed.
It needs no prophetic power to foretell that the commencement of the next
century will see Holland a Roman Catholic country. 9. It was natural that this powerful
body should be eager for diocesan superintendence. The agitation respecting
the Papal aggression had hardly subsided in England when it commenced in
Holland. As early as the 9th of December, 1851, the Internuncio at the Hague,
Monsignor Belgrado[2], addressed a note to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, in which he enquired if the Government would offer any opposition to
the [367] establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy. The reply was in the
negative, provided the Concordats of 1827 and 1841, being overridden in one
point, should be held annulled in all; and that the Government of Holland, in
surrendering its rights, should be relieved from its responsibilities. A
lengthened correspondence ensued on the subject; difficulties were gradually
smoothed down, though a very strong feeling sprang up in the country against
the proposed change; and at length, on the 4th of March, 1853, the Bull Ex
quâ die established the new hierarchy. It constituted, or reconstituted,
Utrecht the metropolitical see of the province of Holland, and raised
Haarlem, Bois-le-duc, Breda, and Roermonde to the dignity of suffragan sees.
The reader will remember that, by the Bull Super Universas,
Bois-le-duc and Roermonde had been made suffragans to Mechlin; Breda was a
new see. The diocese of Utrecht was to contain the province of that name, and
those of Groningen, Guelderland, Friesland, and Drenthe; to that of Haarlem
were annexed Holland and Zealand; Zwijsen, Bishop of Gerra in partibus,
and Vicar-Apostolic of Bois-le-duc, was raised to the see of Utrecht,
retaining for the present Bois-le-duc also; Van Vree, President of the
Seminary at Warmond, was made Bishop of Haarlem; Van Hooydonk, Bishop of
Dardania in partibus, heretofore Vicar-Apostolic of Holland, was made
Bishop of Breda, and Panedis of Roermonde. The hierarchy was announced by
Pius IX. in the secret consistory of March 7. 10. The passage in the Ex quâ die,
in which the National Church is mentioned, runs as follows: — “The pastors having thus” — i.e. by
the outbreak of the Reformation — “been cast out, persecuted, or slain,
Gregory [368] XIII., of glorious memory, deputed, as Vicar-Apostolic, for the
gathering together of the remains of the dispersed flock, Sasbold Vosmeer,
who afterwards, raised by Clement VIII. to the dignity of Archbishop of
Philippi, when he had obtained no small number of holy labourers[3]
from the best institutions, and the Regular Orders, set his hand to the
restoration of ruined religion, and, by God’s help, not without good success.
The same care was manifested by his successors, the Roman Pontiffs; as
Alexander VII., who, when the Jansenian schism commenced, ceased not manfully
to oppose that Monster and Pest, and to restrain and break its violence; also
Innocent XII., Clement XI., Benedict XIII. and XIV.,” &c., &c. 11. On the receipt of the Bull in
Holland, the popular indignation resembled that of England during the “Papal
aggression.” Petition after petition was poured in; interpellation after
interpellation made in the Chambers, and the ministry, who had not seen the
allocutions or apostolical letters, were dismayed at some of the expressions
they contained. “We should,” writes De Zuylen de Nyevelt, then foreign
minister, “have strongly dissuaded the erection of an archiepiscopal see in a
city remarkable for the intolerance of its inhabitants. We should have
pointed out the danger of representing the re-establishment of the episcopate
as a necessary consequence of the progress of Catholicism in the Netherlands,
and of connecting this measure with the state of the country in the sixteenth
century.” The remark about Utrecht was not without foundation. I have been
told that, in the ferment occasioned by the Papal Bull, the Bishop of Glasgow
happened to be visiting that city, and to wear his usual episcopal dress,
when he was mobbed as a member of the intruded hierarchy, and obliged [369]
to take refuge in a house. The Thorbecke ministry fell; the Chambers were
dissolved; and gradually the new hierarchy became a fait accompli.
Modifications in practice were, however, introduced: Bishop Zwijsen
continued, for example, his residence at Bois-le-duc, and thus popular
feeling was allayed. 12. With the intrigues of cabinets
and the ferment of popular Protestantism my history has nothing to do. The
calm protest of the national bishops against the intrusion on themselves, the
only really injured party, affords a refreshing contrast to both. The Ex
quâ die is dated on the 4th of March, 1853. Bishop Vet, of Deventer, died
on the 7th of the same month, and in the following August Archbishop Van
Santen and Bishop Van Buul issued a protest against the new hierarchy. I had,
while negotiations were pending, enquired of the Archbishop what steps would
be pursued, were the contemplated aggression carried out. His reply was as
follows: — “We also have heard some uncertain
rumours with respect to a Concordat into which the Pope and King are about to
enter, and the creation of new bishops. But the public prints disagree very
widely as to its nature. The Pope, or rather the Roman Court, will never
acknowledge us unless we yield a blind obedience, which God of His grace
forbid that we should ever pay. But whatever the Pope and the King may do as
regards the Dutch Missionary Church, we shall not consider it any especial
business of ours. Only, if new Bishops of Haarlem and Utrecht are appointed,
we shall publicly protest both to the Pope and to the King. This may suffice
to set your mind, and that of your friends, at rest as regards our position.” 13. The protest thus commences: — “By the public journals we have,
among others, received [370] notice of the Apostolic Letter Ex quâ die,
published on the 4th of March in the present year, by which a Catholic
hierarchy is instituted in this country. “If the sees of Utrecht and Haarlem
had not been included in this arrangement, we should have felt at liberty,
the state of our affairs being as it is, to hold our peace, and to commit, in
silent prayer, the whole matter to the Divine Governor of the Church. “But since that letter arbitrarily
disposes of those Churches, to the government of which we, although unworthy,
have been called by Divine Providence, and legitimately consecrated according
to the rules of Catholic discipline, as the Holy See was at the time duly
informed, now it would be a sin to hold silence; now to speak — candidly and
openly to speak — is a duty no less necessary than unpleasant.” 14. They proceed to a brief narrative
of the history of their Church, and quote the See of Rome itself as the
witness against Papal usurpation. They cite S. Leo, “Privilegia ecclesiarum —
quanto magis,” (they justly observe,) “jura nativa — nullâ possunt impietate
divelli, nullâ novitate violari.” They adduce S. Bernard: “Monstrum facis, si
manui submovens digiturn facis pendere de capite superiorem manui, brachio
collateralem: tale est, si in Corpore Christi membra aliter locas quam
disposuit ipse.” They shew that their cause ought to have been heard on the
spot, and quote the Bishops of Africa to Pope Celestin: “Prudentissime et
justissime providerunt (Canones Nicaeni) quaecunque negotia in suis locis,
ubi orta sunt, finienda.” They shew that no charges were made, no witnesses
adduced; the calumnies of the Jesuits were heard alone; and hence the appeal
to the Future Council of May 9 and July 18, 1719. 15. They next point out the various
mis-statements of the Papal Bull as respects Sasbold Vosmeer, the total [371]
inaccuracy of which, except as regards the high character attributed to
Vosmeer, they most clearly evince. So far from the fact corresponding with
the statement, that the priests were ejected, punished, or slain, they shew
on Sasbold’s own testimony that six hundred still remained at their posts
when he first came into Holland. The paragraphs which treat of the
help he received from the Regulars shall be quoted entire: — “But the following passage in the Apostolic
Letter has wounded us, holy Father, more deeply than anything besides:
‘Sasbold Vosmeer obtained no small number of holy labourers from the best
institutions and the Regular Orders, and set his hand to the restoration of
ruined religion, and, by God’s help, not without good success.’ Perhaps,
after what had been said above, it was necessary to add this sentence, lest,
since the pastors had partly been ejected, partly punished, partly slain,
Sasbold alone should seem unequal to so great a work: but history blushes and
grieves that truth should be so impudently despised and ridiculed. “The want which is said to have
existed between the promotion of Sasbold and the arrival of the missionaries
in these lands is a mere figment; and the number of the latter, when it is
said to have been ‘not small,’ is beyond measure exaggerated. Sasbold,
whenever he mentions them in his letters, speaks of them as some, or certain,
religious. Through the whole time of his episcopate their number never
exceeded a tenth of the clergy. Whether they were ‘chosen out of the best
institutions and Regular Societies,’ we had rather not decide, although we
cannot so make out from the memorials of that time, we envy the praises of
none. But the laudations bestowed on those religious who then were sent into
this country, on account of their salutary labours for the restoration of
ruined religion, recall to our minds these sayings of Sasbold: — ‘I
understand that these religious,’ of the Society of Jesus, ‘have written much
of their labour, and its fruit; all which things I simply assert to be false,
and invented in opposition to that which they know to be true. [372] I would
not that the Pontiff should be deceived or the Church deluded with false
relations.’ That which he had written in this letter (May 22, 1610) to his
agent at Rome, Gravius, the same, twelve years previously, he had written to
the Archduke Albert, with respect to the machinations of the same religious:
— ‘And further, for the accrediting of their own name, they ascribe to
themselves the acts of others — they exaggerate trifles — they transmit
everything to their own members, by whom they are disseminated through the
whole world.’ — ‘Let them say what they will,’ so he writes in another letter
to Gravius, April 13, 1609, ‘the thing is as I write: the denial of their own
faults, and the imputation of them to others, is to them a trifle.’ When such
testimonies speak, it is easier to extol those religious than — at least
among men of learning — to procure credence in extolling them. We, holy
Father, attribute, as regards this affair, greater weight to the testimony of
Sasbold, whom we cite the more willingly, because, in the judgment of the
Bull Ex quâ die, his authority cannot be suspected. His sentiments on
monastic orders in general, and the Jesuits in particular, are abundantly
manifest from the complaints which occur everywhere in his letters: — ‘I have
wished more than once that all the Mendicants could be recalled to their
monasteries,’ (to Tilman, March 9, 1588); ‘ In the meanwhile I wish that all
the Regulars could be immediately recalled hence,’ (to the same, July 24,
1599); ‘I could wish that they,’ the Jesuits, ‘had never come hither, because
they hinder more good than they perform; and I remain in my opinion, that I
had rather they were absent than left here,’ (to Gravius, April 4, 1609);
‘Would that they,’ the Jesuits, ‘ had never come into our country,’ (to
Cardinal Mellini, Aug. 17, 1613). Is it credible, holy Father, that Sasbold
should, through five-and-twenty years, have reiterated the same complaints
against the missionaries, if they had been his faithful coadjutors and
sincere labourers in the vineyard of the Lord?” 16. They proceed to quote several
more passages of a similar tendency; but these may amply suffice to
demonstrate the utter untruth of the statements of the [373] Ex quâ die.
But it will not be amiss to give the accounts of two Ultramontane writers in
parallel columns: —
Can the force of self-contradiction
go further? 17. The Epistle to Pius IX. ends as
follows: — “We ought not to fear that your
Holiness should take these remarks ill. Every one of a generous spirit must
sympathize with that saying of the great Cyprian: ‘We are not conquered, but
instructed, when something better is set before us, especially in those
matters which pertain to the unity of the Church, and the verity of our hope
and faith.’ For us, Holy Father, God is our record, if we have expressed
ourselves too boldly, that we desire to detract nothing from the dignity of
the Holy See, which, as sincere Catholics, we honour and reverence. We have
only said as much — God grant it may have been enough! — as seemed necessary
to truth and to the maintenance of our rights; and this one thing we asked,
that, with the wisdom given you from on high, you would examine our cause,
Holy Father, in the balance of truth; and if it shall be found just, that to
you, the chief Pontiff, may be reserved the glory of giving a righteous and
[374] desired peace to our Churches — long, too long, vexed and troubled. “We subscribe, with great veneration, 18. I am not called on to relate the
sorrowful event of December, 1854, which seemed to put Catholic unity further
off than ever; or to comment on that second and worse Unigenitus, the
Bull Ineffabilis. Herman Heykamp having been raised to the see of
Deventer in the March of that year, joined his brethren in a protest against
the new doctrine; issued somewhat late, indeed, but well worthy of
translation here: — “Most holy Father, — The year of the
Incarnation, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, the sixth of the Ides of December,
in the church of S. Peter, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, Mother of our Saviour, was solemnly promulgated by your Holiness, as a
dogma of the Christian faith. It is impossible to say how much such an event
has astonished us; much more, has afflicted us. “We might, perhaps, have been
reproached for not having sooner made known our sentiments regarding so
prodigious an occurrence. The sincere faith of the Church of Utrecht is
sufficiently well known in the Catholic world. True Catholics have therefore
certainly concluded that she rejected without hesitation the new and false
dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin Mary. But our
Church has not considered this good opinion of her faith a sufficient reason
for not publicly manifesting her opposition to the new dogma. We owe to our
dignity, to the Catholic faith, to the defenders of the truth, its open
rejection. This is why we should think we had failed in our duty if we longer
kept silence. “The integrity of the faith in which
we have been instructed from our earliest years does not allow us to be
silent. [375] The charge which has been entrusted to us, notwithstanding our
unworthiness, imposes a very grave obligation upon us, that of openly
professing our belief upon the fact in question. We are, indeed, persuaded
that the sacred deposit of the faith can neither be augmented nor diminished.
In our office of Bishops of the Catholic Church, we have been charged to
preserve intact that deposit. ‘Keep that which is committed to thy trust,’
wrote S. Paul to his disciple Timothy, (1 Tim. vi. 20). S. Vincent of Lérins
did not think that this was only written for Timothy; all those who should
succeed him, by the very fact that they are bishops, ought to receive this
commandment as written for them. “Now, the opinion which you have
promulgated of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Mother of our Saviour,
would add to the faith. In fact, before the eleventh century of the Christian
era, no such prerogative was anywhere recognised as belonging to the Blessed
Virgin. If we turn either to the Eastern or the Western Church, and
interrogate these two parts of the Catholic world upon their faith, we cannot
find in either of them the slightest trace of this opinion before the time we
have mentioned. If we appeal to the writings of the sovereign pontiffs your
predecessors, we are convinced that they did not hold this opinion before the
century above-mentioned; still further, it would not be difficult for us to
quote some words of the sovereign pontiffs which are contrary to it. Let us
only point out Innocent III., Innocent V., and Clement VI. It would be
equally easy for us to cite some clear passages of Holy Scripture
diametrically opposed to this new opinion. We can gain nothing, then, from
the two sources of the Divine Word in favour of the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin, Mother of God. Therefore, to preserve this deposit
as much as in us lies, we raise our voices, and we say that the said doctrine
carries on its face the mark of novelty. This is the first and important
reason which our judgment induces us to put forth. “The Bishops of the Catholic Church
have not been allowed to be judges of this doctrine; and this is the second
complaint we have to address to your Holiness. To the Bishops, in short,
belongs the right to judge. No notice has been taken of this [376] right
attached to the episcopal character. The whole order of Bishops has not been
asked its sentiments touching the opinion in question. The letters of those
which have been addressed to Rome are only particular writings; the voice of
their Churches has not been heard. Now it is certain that the right of
judging is inherent in the episcopate. The Council of Jerusalem, the first
and the model of all councils, proves the prerogative. For when S. Peter, the
first of the apostles, had spoken, S. James rose, and said, ‘My sentence is,’
(Acts xv. 19). Those Bishops, successors and vicars of the apostles, who have
heard you, by yourself, proclaiming a new dogma of faith, have they safely
kept their right? No, indeed, they have only been silent witnesses or
contemptible flatterers. How the episcopal dignity was disgraced in this
gathering, illustrious in appearance! No one came forward as the courageous
guardian of his order. Without wishing to fail in the respect which is due to
you, we will tell you the truth, most holy Father! To raise the head higher
than was right, the most illustrious members of the body have been humbled.
Thanks be to God, we have not yet forgotten our dignity, and we complain to
you of the injury which has been done to it. “The love of our Church: this
is the third reason which obliges us to reject publicly the false dogma of
the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin. This love demands that we
should take the greatest care to preserve our Church free from error. Through
the grace of God, the faith has been preserved there pure, notwithstanding
the events which have too often shaken it in our country. We have therefore
thought that it was our duty to put far from her all novelty in that which
regards articles of faith. After the confusion introduced, three years since,
in the hierarchical order, the integrity of the Catholic faith might have
been threatened. Our intention is to ensure ourselves from this danger; and
we ought to use all our efforts to present our Church to Christ as a chaste
virgin. Our duty is to transmit to posterity the ancient faith, in its
simplicity and purity, as we have received it from our predecessors. Removed
from all novelty, as friends of antiquity, we distinguish by this, with
Tertullian, the true doctrine from the false, — ‘That comes [377] evidently
from the Lord, and is true, which has been from the beginning; but that is
strange and false, which has been added in the course of time.’ (Praescript,
c. 31.) The Apostle of the Gentiles has warned us not less than Timothy,
‘avoiding profane and vain babblings (1 Timothy vi. 20); babblings,
that is to say, novelties of dogmas, of things, of sentiments, which are
contrary to truth and to antiquity; if these are admitted, the faith of the
holy fathers must be violated in everything, or at least in a great measure.’
Thus speaks S. Vincent of Lérins. “About two centuries ago, the
ambassador of Philip IV., king of Spain, asked, in the name of his master,
your predecessor, Alexander VII., a decision on the Immaculate Conception of
the Holy Virgin. This Pope wished to know if he could decide the question,
and he interrogated Cardinal Bona on this subject. The pious and learned Cardinal
replied to him, that neither the Holy See nor the Church herself could make
new articles of faith, but that they could only declare what God had revealed
to His Church, after having examined, according to rule, the traditions
transmitted from the apostles. ‘Could I not,’ replied the Pope, ‘under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, decide what we ought to believe on this
point?’ ‘Most holy Father,’ said Bona, ‘that which might be divinely
discovered to you, could only serve for you, and it would not be permitted
you to oblige the faithful, any more than myself, to adhere to your
decision.’ Would to God that a procedure so wise and so catholic had been
followed by all the successors of S. Peter! “We have thought it a matter of
honour and duty to offer to your Holiness the pastoral instruction which we
have joined to this letter. In order that it may be better and more clearly
known in our dioceses what Catholics ought to believe regarding the new dogma
of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin, we have published it for the
Dutch in the language of our country. “Our Church has often appealed to the
Future Oecumenical Council that shall be legitimately assembled. It appears
necessary to us to renew that appeal. On account of the violation which this
deposit of the faith has suffered, and because of the injury which has been
done to the episcopal [378] order, when it has been desired to establish, as
a dogma revealed from God, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, Mother of our Saviour, we reserve to ourselves the right to make our
appeal in time and place fitting. May the Father of lights give to our hearts
enlightened eyes, and may He work in us that which pleases Him! “We have signed with veneration, 19. Before concluding, it may not be
amiss that I should briefly notice a few of the most eminent writers of the
Church of Holland since the separation. Of Hugh van Heussen, John Christian
van Erkel, Nicolas Broedersen, and Willebrord Kemp, I have spoken at length.
Pennaert, pastor first at Ameland, then at Egmonden, and finally at
Enkhuizen, also distinguished himself by his writings in defence of the
National Church. Boebereel, pastor at Rotterdam, was the author of an
excellent commentary on the Epistles and Gospels of the Liturgy, under the
title of Christelijke Vader. Bessemers, pastor at Gouda, published a
translation of the Missal, with annotations. Bervelingh, pastor at Amsterdam,
was especially celebrated for his sermons. Legros, the greater part of whose
Commentary on Holy Scripture still remains MS. Verhulst, one of the ablest
polemics of the eighteenth century, and especially celebrated for his letters
to David Pierman under the title of Ph. Vlaming. Diloent, the author of
several controversial works; and Laplat, a canonist of no mean reputation.
Nor must I forget [379] to mention the excellent translation of the whole
Bible, by A. van der Schuur and H. van Rhijn. 20. And thus I end the Annals of the
Church of Utrecht. It is impossible to close my task without wishing for the
knowledge of a prophet as to the future fate of that communion. That since
the first breaking out of the schism it has dwindled excessively cannot be
denied. Thus, the clergy who upheld Codde amounted to 300; in 1736, seventy-four
priests held with the National Church. At the present moment there are not
more than 30. But this is not a fair way of looking at the decrease. We know
that, in the archpresbytery of Utrecht, there are now more baptisms, nearly
by one-fifth, than there were in 1763. We must therefore conclude that the
number of souls has increased in the same proportion; and there is the same
increase in the other parts of that Church. Yet that archpresbytery contained
in 1763, ten parishes; it has now only seven. The decrease of the clergy,
therefore, is not to be taken as a measure of the decrease of the faithful.
Besides, however, diminished numbers, the Church of Utrecht has had to
contend with injury and robbery. Up to 1723 she had two colleges at Louvain —
the one for the diocese of Utrecht, the other for that of Haarlem. When the
Chapter of the last-named see had resolved to exercise no jurisdiction, the
affairs of their college fell, naturally enough, into disorder. Steenoven,
when Vicar-General, asserted the claims of the National Church to this
college. Not only, after a tedious litigation, was the college of Haarlem
lost, but that of Utrecht was also wrested from the clergy. Up to 1762 the
Church of Utrecht had a small college at Vianen, and a congregation. In consequence
of the reception of a young Protestant into its communion there, the college
[380] and congregation were alike quashed, The progress of Amersfoort,
however, made up for these losses. The system of education is excellent; the
presidents have been able men, and a succession of excellent priests has been
turned out from that institution. It is only wonderful, if we consider how
easily any priest could avoid rebuke, and meet with reward and praise, how
easily any congregation could avenge itself for a fancied neglect by joining
the communion of Rome, how jealousy on election to the episcopate might
naturally tend to such a termination, that so few have left, that so many
remain. In 1760, one Burges at Amsterdam sold himself, his congregation, and
his church to the Papal communion, on promise of a rich living. The civil
courts interfered, and restored the building to its legitimate possessors.
But such an event has not often happened. The numbers, then, at present
remain almost stationary. Scarcely any member of the National Church is lost
to the Papal communion, except by mixed marriages; and these losses are
supplied by occasional conversions from Protestantism. And there are not
wanting instances of women who, having married into Brabant, or Belgian Flanders,
or even Limburg, come up every year for their Easter confession and their
Easter Communion to the Church of their baptism. 21. It seems to me that the little
remnant of this afflicted Church are reserved for happier days. Where-ever
and whenever that Oecumenical Council may be, or whatever other means God
shall employ to restore the lost unity of Christendom, the labours, and
triads, and sufferings of this communion will not be forgotten. Marvellously
raised up as she was when human help seemed at an end, marvellously preserved
through five years of extreme danger in the present [381] century, her
existence once hanging on the steadiness of the gripe by which a drowning
prelate was held above water, she can scarcely have been thus maintained that
her end should be without honour, that she should dwindle and dwindle till
her last spark is extinguished. She can scarcely have been held up, from her
protest against the Unigenitus, till she has also protested against
the more dangerous Ineffabilis, that, after these struggles for the
truth, she may be permitted to fall. Surely not for this did Steenoven, and
Van Erkel, and Broedersen, and Van Heussen, and Meindaerts write, and strive,
and suffer; surely not for this has the steadfast piety that has distinguished
this communion for a century and a half, sent up so many earnest prayers to
the Supreme Judge to vindicate its innocence, and make known the
righteousness of its cause. As I lay down my pen, I cannot but hear the
words, once the comfort of another suffering Church, now addressed to this: —
“I know thy works: behold, I have set
before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little
strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My Name. “Because thou hast kept the word of
My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall
come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. “Behold, I come quickly: hold that
fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” [1] It is to the Abbé van Werckhoven that I owe my
first introduction to the National Church of Holland, in the May of 1851. He
departed this life May 12, 1852. [2] Handelingen, i. 152. [3] Compare this with Sasbold’s own
account, pp. 126 — 129.
|
John Mason Neale, 1818-1866 |
